Why read Proust (1871-1922) today ?

Quote: "... we should ask ourselves why so many people are caring to Proust now, in the twenty first century ?.The reason, certainly in the wealthy West, is that Proust speaks to more of us than ever before, precisely because we ourselves are more leisured and more pampered than any time in history. Our anxiety and guilt about this,our search for meaning in our lives,our sense of running to stand still, these all echo a very Proustian sensibility. His digressive, encyclopedic, associative style is an uncanny precursor of the internet age: he is strangely more readable today than ever before." -- Ingrid Wassenar, 2006
(Introduction to the book, " Remembrance of Things Past"
Volume 1 ( Wordsworth Editions )

Have you read the Proust's fiction in this novel series?.
I will attempt to read the mini-encyclopaedia set of these books .(I hope to do so ).What is your general verdict or rating for all these books if you have completed reading them?.

Why not?

What lilithcat said.

And if you don't want to read Proust, why read anything that isn't written by a living, contemporary author?

PS, I read the most recent translation(s) -- different volumes translated by different translators, not the Wordsworth Editions, whatever they are.

Why read anything BUT Proust?

Because you have approximately 4200 other books in your library?

What Lola said.

Proust is a universe unto himself, and once you've walked in that world it is very difficult to come back.

Because you have approximately 4200 other books in your library?

Only because Proust likes company. It's a party.

Proust does like company, and his writing informs you on almost every aspect of life - informs, entertains, delights.

A brilliant bon vivant, Lola, but you must know that he may never leave.

Lucky you.

i am not in agreement with Wassenaar although i think her book looks exciting (i've heard her talk and her precision made me eager to read a new take on Proust...in her talk she claimed Proust was a kind of anti-Semite - v. counterintuitive); but i don't think Proust is only for pampered people and that today's world is back to those decadent times. i am of the view that decadence is endemic, and ubiquitous. that's why Proust is always for all of us at any time; he knows our jealousies and about love - and that's for all of us. people have agendas all the time that are secret, and that we put out there constantly hoping no one will notice, and i agree with the poster earlier who said 'why not only read proust' - there is something to be said for that pov - Proust is a sheer delight; it's why i am glad i can read - biologically and with a skill taught me in younger days.

>1 skoobdo:: Proust has been fighting to get onto my TBR pile for a while now. That introduction you've quoted is very intriguing - he just might make it now.

This is why I like LibraryThing, I am now very interested to read an author I didn't even know existed 10 minutes ago.

Any recommendation on which translation or which work to start with?

Which book to start with?:

Probably the first volume, Swann's Way, would be the best to start with, IMHO (in my humble opinion; is web lingo welcome on this site?).

That's because one way to summarize the novel is: a chronology of the protagonist's perception of life/time as he ages. (Although he never once tells us his age, he just allows us to recognize it from his world view.)

And also because Swann's Way is probably the best-edited volume and the "clearest" to read. (In French or English.)

My own favorite, however, is The Guermantes Way, which covers Marcel's entry into "high society," around his twenties. And THAT is because Proust's metaphors and figurative language at this point are my favorites.

I would NOT recommend starting a later volume; too much introductory material has been covered by that time, and the volumes do not stand on their own after that point.

What do you get out of ?:

There are multiple ways to appreciate Proust. When I read the entire work as a college discussion group, most of the others were deeply into the social hierarchical aspect--which is indeed a major theme. But I was drawn more so into Proust's fascination with many aspects of time and his attempt to get his ideas about the nature of time across. Second, I was quite taken in by the beauty of his metaphors and figurative language. Sometimes they took time to clarify them, but it was well worth it.

Which translation?:

I originally read Swann's Way in French and then read the C.K. Scott Moncrieff translation of the entire work, In Search of Lost Time , which appears to have been published by multiple companies (I read the Random House one). But I've read about at least one other translation in progress fin recent year--maybe that's the one mentioned above, but I'm not sure--so I don't know what I'd recommend.

(With French being my "second" language of sorts, I am re-reading the original in French.)

Other: In Search of Lost Time might top my list of all books I've ever read, although it's not an easy read.

Diane-BPC, thanks for such a comprehensive reply. I would look around and see which English translation of Swann's Way I can find here, and start from there.

As for web lingos, I have seen them used here some times, there might be some groups who may not like it, but in general, it isn't much scorned at (at least as far as I can see).

No, but occasionally dinosaurs like me might ask for subtitles. :-)

I asked myself the same question, Skoobdo, why read Proust? I've just finished part 1 of the 6 volume work A la Recherce du Temps Perdu (in English it's called In Search of Lost Time). My answer is a little lengthy but it can be found at smallbrownbird.net/blog/

Interesting that many critics compare reading Proust to mountaineering. Alain de Botton warns not to treat Proust as an achievement, he's not Everest! And Marcelle Clements tells us not to let ourselves be dazzled by his style, it's fatal. Do not lie down in the snow, keep moving!

As for me, just hearing someone lament that "no one reads Proust anymore" was enough of an enticement.

-- smallbrownbird

See modified entry 22

>18 smallbrownbird: Don't know much about blogs, but am I right that you wrote the following about reading Proust in your blog?

Following a list of what various authors had to say on the subject, you wrote "...Lastly, Gabriel Josipovici got my attention when he had this to say about post-modernist taste:

“He wrote it his book, Whatever Happened to Modernism he says to make sense of a problem that had long puzzled him: why was it that works of literature such as the poems of TS Eliot, the stories of Kafka and Borges, the novels of Proust, Mann, Claude Simon and Thomas Bernhard seemed worlds apart from those admired by the English literary establishment, works by writers such as Margaret Atwood, John Updike, Martin Amis and Ian McEwan? He says that the first group touched him to the core, leading him into the depths of himself even as they led him out into worlds. The latter were well-written narratives that, once he’d read them, he had no wish ever to reread.”

That is the answer, exactly!!!!! I always try, with lesser books, to at least read books that move me enough, for various reasons, to want to reread or reference them again.

Thanks for quoting that!

What would be the joy of reading, otherwise?

>19 Diane-bpcb:
Always be very suspicious when someone starts coming up with apple/pear lists like that! Besides its explicit message about modernism, that quote seems to be implying that "Anglo-Saxon literary culture falls down in the face of proper heavy-duty Continental writing", but what happens if you rewrite it with (say) Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Faulkner, Gertrude Stein and Virginia Woolf in one list and Marcel Pagnol, Konsalik and Giovanni Guareschi in the other?

#20

I agree with your point, but, unfair comparison!--Pagnol and Guareschi, to say nothing of Konsalik (who is better compared to Jackie Collins and her ilk---or, even better, Sidney Sheldon), aren't in the same league as Atwood, Updike and McEwan (have not read Martin Amis).

Whether "Anglo-Saxon literary culture" is wanting compared to the Continent can only ever be a subjective judgement, I think.

#20

Thanks for pointing that out. I am four decades away from the academic/literary world and didn't realize who I was (re-?)quoting.

I was only thinking of Proust and am an enthusiast, not an academic. What was relevant to me was how the book "...touched him to the core, leading him into the depths of himself even as they led him out into worlds. The latter were well-written narratives that, once he’d read them, he had no wish ever to reread."

I've never ever in all my 73 years considered reading Proust because it always seemed one of those 1001 books you should read before you die but no-one ever finishes. A bit like an upmarket Jane Austen. But "The Times" had an insert yesterday of "the 25 books you should read" and "Remembrance of Things Past" came in at number 17. The description made it sound quite interesting so I'm thinking (just thinking) of giving it a try.

In my opinion, the reason that "no one ever finishes"--although I actually did finish it in translation and have read parts in French--has to do with Proust having re-"polished" the finished parts so often that his figurative language--metaphors within metaphors--requires intense concentration. Then, in addition, portions of the later books of this novel were NOT revised enough to be clear, so that one can get lost in the substandard sections.

On the other hand, I could never regret reading it, because the major themes (the nature of time and Marcel's fiercely wanting to recapture it) and topics ("rising" in society vs. what one finds along the way, the portraits of individuals and Marcel's changing attitude toward them as time passes, appreciation of art and music both generally and specifically) are addressed beautifully. And although there are rough portions as you go along, the novel ends grandly.

But I also think it well worthwhile to read at least half of it.